MAJLIS AGAMA ISLAM SELANGOR v. DAHLIA DHAIMA ABDULLAH & ANOTHER APPEAL

[2023] 3 MLRA 1
Court of Appeal, Putrajaya
Yaacob Md Sam, Ravinthran Paramaguru, Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali JJCA
[Civil Appeal Nos: B-01(NCVC)(A)-40-01-2022 & B-01(NCVC)(A)-57-01-2022]
Yaacob Md Sam, Ravinthran Paramaguru, Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali JJCA

JUDGMENT

Mohd Nazlan Mohd Ghazali JCA:

Introduction

[1] These are appeals against the decision of the High Court which allowed the respondent's application for a declaration that she is not a person who professes the religion of Islam. After having heard the appeals which was conducted by way of a remote communication technology via Zoom, we, by a majority, decided to allow the appeals for the reasons contained in these grounds of judgment.

Key Background Facts

[2] These two appeals, which were heard together before us originated from an originating summons ("OS") instituted by the respondent at the High Court in Shah Alam, against Majlis Agama Islam Selangor (MAIS) and the Selangor State Government. The principal relief sought by the respondent in the OS was for a declaration that she is not a person professing the religion of Islam.

[3] The respondent was born on 17 November 1986 to non-Muslim parents whose marriage was registered under the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976. Her father professed the Hindu religion and her mother was originally a Buddhist.

[4] Some-time in 1991, following the separation of her parents, and this was when the respondent was about five years old, the respondent followed and lived with her mother in Selayang Baru. On 17 May 1991, the respondent's mother visited Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) / PERKIM to convert to the religion of Islam. It was not a secret that the reason for the conversion was that she wished to marry a Muslim person after the conclusion of her divorce.

[5] The respondent was also brought to JAIS / PERKIM by her mother who claimed that an officer informed her that the respondent had to be converted into Islam as well in order to ensure she would get custody over the respondent. The respondent's mother further asserted that the officer had also informed her that once the respondent attained the age of 18, she would be able to choose her own religion.

Sign up to view full cases Login